Archives for the month of: June, 2013

Whenever I am going to lecture, someone asks if I plan to use PowerPoint. And I always say “no, I just need a microphone and a glass of water.”

I know that is retrograde, but to date I have found most PowerPoint presentations to be disruptive or simplistic. I hate it when someone puts up a screen and reads what is says, as thought he audience is illiterate. Sometimes the visuals are clever graphics that make you laugh. Sometimes the setup doesn’t work and the presentation is ruined.

I am thinking of using PowerPoint when I talk about my new book because I use a lot of data to say important things. But I will need lessons and help.

This essay on AV was written by Joseph Epstein, a brilliant essayist. Epstein and I worked together at The Néw Leader magazine in the early 1960s. But that’s another story.

A reader writes about his experience at an international conference:

Last May I had the privilege to be invited to the Van Leer Education conference in Jerusalem with outstanding educational leaders from across the globe. Award winning Teachers, Principals, University Professors and Director Generals/Heads of State were there to discuss the topic “Regulation and Trust”.

As the receipient of the “New York State Outstanding Educator Award” from the School Administrators Assoc. of New York (SAANYS) I was invited to represent our state.

It was very clear that the other countries that were there were vey concerned about the adverse effects of our Race to the Top policies.

It was very clear from the discussion that the other nations were aganist the over use of high stakes testing and felt it was inappropriate to tie these tests to teacher evaluations. These regulations were seen as the cause for mistrust and not helpful in bringing meaningful learning experiencing to children.

The other countries that were there wanted nothing to do with “Race to the Top”. Representatives from Finland described how they have found great success with less regulations,no high stakes testing and an informal evaluation process. Everything opposite of “Race to the Top” .After hearing my colleagues from across the globe I don’t believe that Arne Duncan and his Race to the Top policies would be accepted by any other nation.

Yesterday I posted a statement endorsed by leading education organizations that endorsed the Common Core but called for more time to implement the new standards.

##############

This reader disagrees. The reader commented:

“The joint statement issued by the National School Boards Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principles, and the American Association of School Administrators makes clear that public education in the United States is in deeper trouble than many thought. The problem, though, is not one of pedagogy or teaching personnel. It’s a serious lack of leadership.

The “leadership” groups’ statement on the Common Core standards shows that these “leaders” just don’t get it. They know no more about the Common Core than they did about No Child Left Behind.

Indeed, they say that the Common Core “tests are necessary” for “use in teacher and principal evaluation,” but those tests must be coupled with “sufficient, accurate, and timely data in addition to test scores.” Huh? Say what? After more than a decade of tests and “data-driven” instruction and evaluation, we need even MORE of it? Are they serious? This is like saying the economy needs more tax cuts for corporations and the rich to “stimulate” job creation. Or like a doctor saying he needs to bleed more “bad blood” from the patient in order to cure him.

The “leaders” state that “the prudent course is to avoid over-reliance on the assessments” UNTIL the Common Core standards “are fully implemented…” Then they add this nutty conclusion:

“Failure to consider this reality will result in the…the same disappointing results of NCLB-era accountability.”

Sigh.

Did these people never grasp that the “proficiency” requirements of No Child Left Behind were impossible to achieve? That the projections for 2014 were that 99 percent of California schools would be labeled as “failing,” with “failure” rates of 95 percent in the Great Lakes states and elsewhere?

A former assistant secretary of education in the Bush administration said that NCLB was really a “Trojan horse…a way to expose the failure of public education…to blow it up a bit.” Is the Common Cre really so different?

Look at who supports the Common Core standards: Margaret Spellings, former Ed Secretary, who infamously called NCLB “99.9 percent pure;” Jeb Bush, who is pushing charter schools and vouchers across the country; Bill Gates, who funded the Common Core, and who wants more H1-B visas for his company despite the fact that American education churns out three times as many STEM graduates as there are jobs; and, the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who lobbied aggressively for unfunded corporate tax cuts that spawned huge deficits and debt, and for laissez-faire regulatory policies that aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption (especially on Wall Street) and that blew up the economy.

And now public school “leaders” are lending their support?

Public education in the United States is a foundational cornerstone of democratic governance. Both are in greater jeopardy than many of us thought.”

It has been three years since the passage of “parent trigger” legislation in California, and the law has produced nothing but strife among parents, teachers, and administrators. Corporate reformers backed by billionaires like to say that “kids can’t wait,” but the hostile “trigger” creates strife and the illusion of change, not better schools.

Good schools have a strong collaborative spirit among administrators, teachers, parents, and students. All work together towards a common goal of educating the children. Whatever strengthens the spirit of teamwork strengthens the school and builds its capacity.

The “parent trigger” by definition is a hostile act. It creates division and conflict. It sets parents against parents. It sets parents against teachers. It sets parents against administrators. It is a “trigger” and triggers kill.

In the latest “victory” for Parent Revolution, the organization that has received millions from the Walton, Gates, and Broad Foundations, the principal of Wiegand Elementary School in Los Angeles was ousted. Now parents are holding counter-demonstrations, and accusations are flying.

It is noteworthy that when Parent Revolution tried and failed to convert McKinley Elementary School in Compton, California, to a charter, the charter opened nearby, but few of the McKinley parents transferred their children to it. Parent Revolution’s only “success” thus far was in Adelanto, where they gathered enough signatures to convert Desert Trails Elementary to a charter; when parents tried to remove their signatures from the petition, saying they had been duped, a judge denied them the right to do so. One of the parent leaders in Adelanto is now an employee of Parent Revolution. Many of those who signed the petition no longer have children in the school.

The legislature should scrap this pernicious law. To begin with, public schools don’t belong to the parents of children now enrolled. They belong to the public, whose taxes built them and maintain them. Only duly elected and appointed officials should be empowered to privatize public property or to fire the school’s leader. The law as presently written is vigilante justice, which is seldom just. It allows Parent Revolution to sign parents up through deceitful tactics and force changes that cripple school communities. It is no accident that the “trigger” idea has been embraced by the reactionary group ALEC, which would like to eliminate public education altogether.

I have never debated Michelle Rhee.

I am ready and willing whenever she is.

At a panel discussion convened by Henry Louis Gates Jr. at Martha’s Vineyard in 2011, Michelle and I were on the same panel.

I arrived a day early, knowing how beautiful Edgartown is. Michelle arrived literally one minute before the panel started. She flew in from Florida, after speaking to an event on behalf of the for-profit charter operator Charter Schools USA. Although there was a lovely reception afterwards, she did not stay for it, so we had no time to talk.

You may recognize some other members of the panel. It was moderated by Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Dr. James Comer was there, as was Dr. Laurence Bobo of Harvard and Dr. Angel Harris of Princeton. If you have time, you should watch the whole panel discussion. It was outstanding.

Michelle and I had only a few direct exchanges, but you will get a sense of our differences on this Youtube video, which someone unknown to me edited and forwarded.

TIME magazine put Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on its cover and praised him as a new kind of “pragmatic” Democrat, the kind that busts unions, ignores parents, and cultivates the approval of the business community. That is certainly a ne kind of Democrat.

For a critique of TIME’s fawning coverage, read the article by Peter Hart of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).

This is my favorite part of Hart’s critique, which shows the blatant bias in the magazine’s coverage:

“Time doesn’t dwell on criticisms of Emanuel’s policies; readers are told that “the Chicago Teachers Union, a power unto itself, loosed its heavy artillery”–which sounds menacing–and that some people “charged that the closures targeted majority-black schools with majority-black faculties.”
Could it be that people “charged” that because it was true? As the Chicago Sun-Times reported (3/6/13), “Nine out of 10 of the Chicago Public School students potentially affected by school closings this year are black.”

Merit pay is a zombie idea. It fails and fails and fails again, but legislators just want more of it.

This teacher explains why he doesn’t want it.

There are many reasons to oppose merit pay.

1. It doesn’t work. It failed just in the past few years in Nashville, where the bonus for higher scores was $15,000. It failed in New York City, it failed in Chicago.

2. It has never worked. It has been tried and failed repeatedly for nearly 100 years.

3. Modern social science says that it will never work, that when you pay people a bonus to do what they want to do you actually decrease their motivation.

A short reading list:

Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

Edward Deci, Why We Do What We Do

Daniel Pink, Drive

The National Research Council, Incentives and Test-Based Accountability